Account information only. It is never shown to the AI client you connect, and it is kept apart from your research — which is not logged at all.
Your token is the key to the MCP: claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode take it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. It is also in your welcome email. Install instructions.
No token yet. One token per address, shown once and mailed to you with setup steps — claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode need it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. Install instructions.
Your MCP token. Anyone holding it can search on your subscription, so keep it off shared screens.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
The dedicated fast index: searches run on a machine nobody else queues for, with full-text highlighted excerpts. Higher MCP limits, and semantic search when it lands.
See ProThank you.
Manage billingDelete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. Registered visitors skip the Cloudflare checks, and your MCP token for Claude or ChatGPT is issued at the end of this.
Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
Here is your MCP token. It is shown once — it is also in the welcome email we just sent you, with setup steps.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
That address already had a token, so we did not issue a second one — two live credentials for one mailbox is how people end up with a working laptop and a broken office machine. Your connector URL is in your inbox under “Your Syfert legal research connector URL”; if it is gone, call 904-383-7448.
11 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cooper v. Williamson County Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2024Cf. Cooper v. Williamson County Bd. of Educ., 803 S.W.2d 200, 201 (Tenn. 1990) (a hearing de novo in Chancery re- adjudicates the matter in a neutral forum, completely eliminating any arbitrariness or capriciousness in the board’s decision, which is not afforded a presumption of correctness). 1993Cf. Cooper v. Williamson *51 County Bd. of Educ., 803 S.W.2d 200, 201 (Tenn.1990) (a hearing de novo in Chancery re-adjudicates the matter in a neutral forum, completely eliminating any arbitrariness or capriciousness in the board’s decision, which is not afforded a presumption of correctness). | 2 | 2 |
Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennesseegreen1 sentence2024See also Payne, 493 S.W.3d at 487 . “[C]onsequently, relief must be determined by reference to the statutes.” Nunley, 552 S.W.3d at 819 (citing Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hosp., 984 S.W.2d 593, 597 (Tenn. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State of Tennesseegreen1 sentence2024See also Payne, 493 S.W.3d at 487 . “[C]onsequently, relief must be determined by reference to the statutes.” Nunley, 552 S.W.3d at 819 (citing Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hosp., 984 S.W.2d 593, 597 (Tenn. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Clark D. Frazier v. State of Tennesseegreen1 sentence2024Writs of error coram nobis are no longer governed by the common law; “[r]ather, in Tennessee, the availability of error coram nobis relief is governed solely by statute.” Frazier v. State, 495 S.W.3d 246, 248 (Tenn. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hospitalgreen1 sentence2024See also Payne, 493 S.W.3d at 487 . “[C]onsequently, relief must be determined by reference to the statutes.” Nunley, 552 S.W.3d at 819 (citing Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hosp., 984 S.W.2d 593, 597 (Tenn. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Ackel v. National Communications, Inc.green1 sentence2007Id. at 807, 118 S.Ct. 2275 ; Ackel, 339 F.3d at 386-88 (Garza, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc.green1 sentence2004Staples v. C.B.L. & Assoc., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83, 89 (Tenn. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Inlowgreen1 sentence2002Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611 (d); see State v. Inlow, 52 S.W.3d 101, 109 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
William Dominque v. James A. Telb, Sheriff, Jimmy G. Putnam, Assistant Deputy Directorgreen1 sentence1998See Dominque v. Telb, 831 F.2d 673, 677 (6th Cir. 1987).9 V. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cooper v. Williamson County Board of Education
green
2 sentences1990This Court also considered Mr. Cooper’s charge that the Board had acted in an arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful manner in hearing the charges against him and in dismissing him as an employee, and noted that: Given the availability of a hearing de novo in these cases in which the Chancellor redetermines the merits of the charges and decides whether a board’s actions were justified by the evidence, we do not think that whether a board acted arbitrarily or capriciously has any relevance to the status of the teacher because a hearing de novo in the Chancery Court readjudicates the matter in a ne 1987While the foregoing discussion essentially resolves this issue as well, the evidence being sufficient to justify Plaintiffs dismissal, we take this opportunity to reiterate what we recently stated in Cooper, supra: “Given the availability of a hearing de novo in these cases, in which the Chancellor redetermines the merits of the charges and decides whether a board’s actions were justified by the evidence, we do not think that whether a board acted arbitrarily or capriciously has any relevance to the status of the teacher because a hearing de novo in the Chancery Court readjudicates the matter | 2 | 1987–1990 |
Glossip v. Gross
green
1 sentence2018Glossip , 135 S.Ct. at 2739 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 807, 118 S.Ct. 2275 ; Ackel, 339 F.3d at 386-88 (Garza, J., concurring). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
green
2 sentences1998Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S. Ct. 2727 , 73 L. 1998Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S. Ct. 2727 , 73 L. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Estelle v. Smith
green
2 sentences1994The Court ruled that the testimony violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, stating that "`the availability of the privilege does not turn upon the type of proceeding in which its protection is invoked, but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure which it invites.'" Id., 451 U.S. at 462 , 101 S.Ct. at 1873 (quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 49 , 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1455 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967)). 1994The Court ruled that the testimony violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, stating that "`the availability of the privilege does not turn upon the type of proceeding in which its protection is invoked, but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure which it invites.'" Id., 451 U.S. at 462 , 101 S.Ct. at 1873 (quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 49 , 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1455 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In Re GAULT
green
2 sentences1994The Court ruled that the testimony violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, stating that "`the availability of the privilege does not turn upon the type of proceeding in which its protection is invoked, but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure which it invites.'" Id., 451 U.S. at 462 , 101 S.Ct. at 1873 (quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 49 , 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1455 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967)). 1994The Court ruled that the testimony violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, stating that "`the availability of the privilege does not turn upon the type of proceeding in which its protection is invoked, but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure which it invites.'" Id., 451 U.S. at 462 , 101 S.Ct. at 1873 (quoting In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 49 , 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1455 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.